Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of pre-existing relationships between co-witnesses on statement similarity, after a post-event discussion. Although research studies have attempted to observe the effect of a pre-existing relationship on eyewitness pairs, few have investigated these effects on larger groups of co-witnesses. Four hundred and twenty participants took part in an eyewitness simulation experiment. Participants were placed into groups of five, and viewed video footage of a bar fight. After witnessing the event, participants discussed the event with group members before giving individual statements privately. The study employed a one-way between subjects design with three conditions: (1) participants discussed the event with familiar co-witnesses, (2) participants discussed the event with unfamiliar co-witnesses and (3) participants were not permitted to discuss the event with their co-witnesses (control). It was found that post-event discussion between co-witnesses increased the level of similarity in blame attribution within the eyewitness groups; however, this difference was only significant in groups where eyewitnesses shared a pre-existing relationship. In addition, the level of uncertainty was reduced when eyewitnesses took part in post-event discussions. It is suggested that this might be attributed to an increased level of informational influence between familiar co-witnesses. However, there was no evidence suggesting that post-event discussions led to an increase in false eyewitness statements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen V, Levine J (1968) Social support, dissent and conformity. Sociometry 31(2):138. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786454
Allwood C, Knutsson J, Anders Granhag P (2006) Eyewitnesses under influence: how feedback affects the realism in confidence judgements. Psychol Crime Law 12(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160512331316316
Asch SE (1951) Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In: Guetzkow H (ed) Groups, leadership and men. Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh
Asch SE (1952) Social psychology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193(5):31–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1155-31
Baron R, Vandello J, Brunsman B (1996) The forgotten variable in conformity research: impact of task importance on social influence. J Pers Soc Psychol 71(5):915–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.5.915
Betz A, Skowronski J, Ostrom T (1996) Shared realities: social influence and stimulus memory. Soc Cogn 14(2):113–140. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1996.14.2.113
Blank H (2009) Remembering. Soc Psychol 40(3):164–175. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.3.164
Bond R (2005) Group size and conformity. Group Process Intergroup Relat 8(4):331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430205056464
Burger J, Soroka S, Gonzago K, Murphy E, Somervell E (2001) The effect of fleeting attraction on compliance to requests. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 27(12):1578–1586. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012712002
Cann D, Katz A (2005) Habitual acceptance of misinformation: examination of individual differences and source attributions. Mem Cogn 33(3):405–417. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193059
Carlucci M, Kieckhaefer J, Schwartz S, Villalba D, Wright D (2010) The south beach study: bystanders’ memories are more malleable. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(4):562–566. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1720
Carver C, Scheier M (1981) The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation. J Exp Soc Psychol 17(6):545–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90039-1
Cialdini RB (2001) Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harv Bus Rev 79(9):72–81
Claes M, Poirier L (1992) Characteristics and functions of friendship in adolescence. Psychiatr Enfant 36(1):289–308
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale
Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informative social influences upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51(6):29–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046408
Echterhoff G, Higgins E, Groll S (2005a) Audience-tuning effects on memory: the role of shared reality. J Pers Soc Psychol 89(3):257–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.257
Echterhoff G, Hirst W, Hussy W (2005b) How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Mem Cogn 33(5):770–782. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193073
Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relat 7(2):117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
Forgas J, Williams K (2001) Social influence, 1st edn. Psychology Press, Philadelphia
French L, Garry M, Mori K (2011) Relative – not absolute – judgments of credibility affect susceptibility to misinformation conveyed during discussion. Acta Psychol 136(1):119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.009
Frenzen J, Davis H (1990) Purchasing behavior in embedded markets. J Consum Res 17(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1086/208532
Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K (2003) Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Appl Cogn Psychol 17(5):533–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.885
Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K, Wright D (2004) Say it to my face: examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Leg Criminol Psychol 9(2):215–227. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428
Gabbert F, Memon A, Wright D (2007) I saw it for longer than you: the relationship between perceived encoding duration andmemory conformity. Acta Psychol 124(3):319–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Actpsy.2006.03.009
Garry M, French L, Kinzett T, Mori K (2008) Eyewitness memory following discussion: using the MORI technique with a Western sample. Appl Cogn Psychol 22(4):431–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1376
Goodwin K, Kukucka J, Hawks I (2013) Co-witness confidence, conformity, and eyewitness memory: an examination of normative and informational social influences. Appl Cogn Psychol 27(1):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2877
Hardy K (1957) Determinants of conformity and attitude change. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 54(3):289–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048374
Hoffman H, Granhag P, Kwong See S, Loftus E (2001) Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions. Mem Cogn 29(3):394–404. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196390
Hope L, Ost J, Gabbert F, Healey S, Lenton E (2008) With a little help from my friends…^: the role of co-witness relationship in susceptibility to misinformation. Acta Psychol 127(2):476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.010
Kaplan M, Miller C (1987) Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. J Pers Soc Psychol 53(2):306–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.2.306
Kebbell M, Milne R (1998) Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. J Soc Psychol 138(3):323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549809600384
Kieckhaefer J, Wright D (2014) Likable co-witnesses increase eyewitness accuracy and decrease suggestibility. Memory 23(3):462–472. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2014.905607
Kwong See S, Hoffman H, Wood T (2001) Perceptions of an old female eyewitness: is the older eyewitness believable? Psychol Aging 16(2):346–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.2.346
Lampinen J, Smith V (1995) The incredible (and sometimes incredulous) child witness: child eyewitnesses’ sensitivity to source credibility cues. J Appl Psychol 80(5):621–627. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.80.5.621
Latane B (1981) The psychology of social impact. Am Psychol 36(4):343–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343
Latane B, Wolf S (1981) The social impact of majorities and minorities. Psychol Rev 88(5):438–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.88.5.438
Loftus EF, Feldman J, Dashiell R (1995) The reality of illusory memories. Memory distortion: how minds, brains, and societies reconstruct the past. 47–68
Malof M, Lott A (1962) Ethnocentrism and the acceptance of Negro support in a group pressure situation. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65(4):254–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044518
MckelveyW KN (1988) Differences in conformity among friends and strangers. Psychol Rep 62(3):759–762. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.759
Meade M, Roediger H (2002) Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Mem Cogn 30(7):995–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194318
Memon A, Dalton G, Horry R, Mine R, Wright D (2016) How do witnesses fare with video identification parades, and are police forces following good practice? Researchers into real cases on both sides of the border present their findings. The Journal. Retrieved from http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/57-11/1011839.Aspx
Mojtahedi D, Ioannou M, Hammond L (2017) Personality correlates of co-witness suggestibility. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract 17(4):249–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2017.1358996
Mori K (2003) Surreptitiously projecting different movies to two subsets of viewers. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 35(4):599–604. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195539
Morris W, Miller R (1975) The effects of consensus-breaking and consensus-preempting partners on reduction of conformity. J Exp Soc Psychol 11(3):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(75)80023-0
Mullen B (1983) Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: a self-attention perspective. J Exp Soc Psychol 19(4):295–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90025-2
Ost J, Ghonouie H, Cook L, Vrij A (2008) The effects of confederate influence and confidence on the accuracy of crime judgements. Acta Psychol 128(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.007
Paterson H, Kemp R (2006) Comparing methods of encountering postevent information: the power of co-witness suggestion. Appl Cogn Psychol 20(8):1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1261
Paterson H, Chapman L, Kemp R (2007) The effects of false memory feedback on susceptibility to co-witness misinformation. In Paper accepted for the 3rd International Congress of Psychology and Law
Schacter D, Guerin S, St. Jacques P (2011) Memory distortion: an adaptive perspective. Trends Cogn Sci 15(10):467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.004
Schmechel RS, O’Toole TP, Easterly C, Loftus EF (2006) Beyond the ken? Testing jurors’ understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics 177–214
Skagerberg E, Wright D (2008a) The co-witness misinformation effect: memory blends or memory compliance? Memory 16(4):436–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802019696
Skagerberg E, Wright D (2008b) The prevalence of co-witnesses and cowitness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychol Crime Law 14(6):513–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160801948980
Skagerberg E, Wright D (2009) Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility. Appl Cogn Psychol 23(4):506–523. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1470
Smith J,HoggM,Martin R, TerryD (2007) Uncertainty and the influence of group norms in the attitude-behaviour relationship. Br J Soc Psychol 46(4): 769–792. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466606x164439
Smith V, Ellsworth P (1987) The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: misleading questions and communicator expertise. J Appl Psychol 72(2):294–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.294
Sorrentino R, Yamaguchi S (2008) Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures, 1st edn. Elsevier, San Diego
Stevens J (2009) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 1st edn. Routledge, New York
The British Psychological Society (2014) Code of human research ethics. Retrieved from http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/code_of_human_research_ethics_dec_2014_inf180_web.pdf
Thorley C (2015) Blame conformity: innocent bystanders can be blamed for a crime as a result of misinformation from a young, but not elderly, adult co-witness. PLoS One 10(7):e0134739. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134739
Thorley C, Rushton-Woods J (2013) Blame conformity: leading eyewitness statements can influence attributions of blame for an accident
Tousignant J, Hall D, Loftus E (1986) Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information. Mem Cogn 14(4):329–338. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202511
Tuckey M, Brewer N (2003) The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. J Exp Psychol Appl 9(2):101–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898x.9.2.101
Walker E, Heyns R (1962) An anatomy for conformity, 1st edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Walther E, Bless H, Strack F, Rackstraw P, Wagner D, Werth L (2002) Conformity effects in memory as a function of group size, dissenters and uncertainty. Appl Cogn Psychol 16(7):793–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.828
Wegner DM (1986) Transactive memory. In: Mullen B, Goethals G (eds) Theories of Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 185–208
Wegner D, Erber R, Raymond P (1991) Transactive memory in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol 61(6):923–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923
Wells G, Olson E (2002) Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. J Exp Psychol Appl 8(3):155–167. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-898x.8.3.155
Williamson P, Weber N, Robertson M (2013) The effect of expertise on memory conformity: a test of informational influence. Behav Sci Law 31(5):607–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2094
Wright D, Self G, Justice C (2000) Memory conformity: exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. Br J Psychol 91(2):189–202. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161781
Wright D, London K, Waechter M (2009) Social anxietymoderatesmemory conformity in adolescents. Appl Cogn Psychol 24(7):1034–1045. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1604
Funding
No external funding was received for the study. The project was self-funded by the researchers’ affiliated institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Due to the absence of an external funding body, there were no conflicts of interest. The aim of the present study was to allow the researchers to investigate the effects co-witness familiarity had on large eyewitness groups.
Ethical Approval
The experimentation carried out through the study was carefully planned in accordance with the ethical standards set out by researcher’s institutional ethics panel. In addition, the researchers adhered to ethical guidelines set out by The British Psychological Society’s (BPS) Code of Human Research Ethics (2014).
Informed Consent
Written consent was a mandatory requirement for all participants. All participants were fully informed about the procedure and aims of the study, prior to giving consent. Due to the ethical considerations of exposing participants to violent footage, participants had to be informed that they would be viewing a CCTV footage that contained violence. All participants were psychologically capable of giving their own consent. Furthermore, participants were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mojtahedi, D., Ioannou, M. & Hammond, L. The Dangers of Co-witness Familiarity: Investigating the Effects of Co-witness Relationships on Blame Conformity. J Police Crim Psych 33, 316–326 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9254-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9254-4